I picked this up at Red State last night. It provides an early indication of whether the SCOTUS will allow our electoral system to be pretty much thrown up for grabs:
The US Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution bars former president Trump from running for president in 2024. The case originates with alleged GOP write-in candidate John Anthony Castro of Texas. So far, he's filed lawsuits challenging Trump's eligibility for office in eight states: Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, North Carolina, West Virginia, Montana, Kansas, and Idaho. A lawsuit by Castro in Florida has already been dismissed.
Castro's lawsuit is a long shot. The bar he has to cross is to prove he is personally injured by Trump's candidacy. He hopes to clear that hurdle by claiming that his candidacy is damaged by Trump's presence "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes."
Newsweek says we should have the Supreme Court's decision in about a month.
Epoch Times had an article that discussed various legal views on this issue, but pride of place in the article went to Jonathan Turley. I’ll excerpt the discussion of his take on it:
"Dangerous": Law Professor Sounds Alarm On Attempts To Disqualify Trump
A theory that has recently been floated in the media claims that the former president could be blocked from ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment via the Disqualifications Clause, which states that individuals who "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" cannot hold office. Proponents of the claim say that President Trump engaged in "insurrection" during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach.
But George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley stated that the new theory is "not simply dubious but dangerous."
"The amendment was written to deal with those who engage in an actual rebellion causing hundreds of thousands of deaths," Mr. Turley told Fox News.
"Advocates would extend the reference to ‘insurrection or rebellion’ to include unsupported claims and challenges involving election fraud."
The professor, who had served as an expert impeachment witness in favor of Republicans defending President Trump, said he didn't favor the former president's speech on Jan. 6. However, he said that the Jan. 6 incident was merely "a protest that became a riot" and not an insurrection against the United States.
"According to these advocates, Trump can be barred from the ballot without any charge, let alone a conviction, of insurrection or rebellion," Mr. Turley said.
Mr. Turley added that he views that some people who proposed the theory also "argue that there is no action needed from Congress" and that "state and federal judges could just bar those who are deemed as supporting rebellion through their election challenges and claims."
Follow the link for more. I continue to be optimistic that the SCOTUS will take a stand for the constitution over Leftist mob rule via lawfare. It’s a good sign that this case will be decided well before the primaries begin.
Too bad that a prior presidential candidate who also was named John did not bring a suit against his opponent. To whom do I refer? I am, of course, referring to the odious John Sidney McCain III, who should have challenged B. H. O'Zero's qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. McLame would not deign to cause difficulties for a good friend and colleague in the exclusive 100 member club that both were members of. A candidate for the aforementioned office must be a "natural born Citizen" of the U. S. according to an old parchment called the Constitution @ Art. 2, sec. 1. A natural born Citizen is distinguished from a statutory citizen at birth by the persons parentage, BOTH parents must be U. S. Citizens at the time of birth or one is not a "natural born Citizen" regardless of birthplace . . . PERIOD !!! Only another presidential candidate has standing to bring such a case according to SCOTUS's. Does any one actually believe that dual citizen Rafael "Ted" Cruz or V. P. Cackler, Kamala Heresy, would pass the "natural born Citizen" test?
I realize that most of what Dan McLaughlin writes is maddening at best, and the linked article below (found at the Red State link Mark provides in the post) is little exception. I also know that many, like me, try hard not to give NRO our clicks. Fine. Totally understandable. But all that said, it really is a well done legal argument of how this 14th Amendment crap is just that - crap. The one area he doesn't address is the requirement that the barred candidate be a former officer of the U.S., and the pieces I've read on that strike me as pretty persuasive that POTUS is not an officer. Regardless, McGlaughlin's arguments seem to make the question moot, as there should be no way a SCOTUS analysis need ever get that far anyway.
nationalreview.com/2023/08/donald-trump-still-isnt-ineligible-to-run-in-2024